Posted on 02/05/2005 10:24:01 AM PST by Pikamax
After a crumby ending, donated dough rolls in for 2 cookie deliverers By Electa Draper Denver Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 06, 2005 -
Durango - The Cookie Defense Fund has swelled to thousands of dollars.
Hundreds of Denver Post readers e-mailed and called to express "shock" and "outrage" that two 18-year-old Durango girls were sued for something they did last summer: drop off a plate of cookies and a paper heart on a neighbor's porch.
Taylor Ostergaard and Lindsey Zellitti lost in Small Claims Court in La Plata County on Thursday. Their impulse to bake cookies and treat neighbors by knocking, dropping off and running away went awry. One of nine neighbors who received a plate of cookies said the pounding on her door about 10:30 p.m. July 31 frightened her into an anxiety attack. A Durango judge awarded about $900 to the 49-year-old woman to cover some medical bills incurred when she ended up at the emergency room the next day.
If the people who called and wrote make good on their pledges, that $900 will be recovered many times over. Several people offered to personally cover the whole amount themselves.
The attention has been overwhelming.
"We just put them on the plane. Lindsey, Taylor and Jill (Taylor's mother) are headed to New York to do 'Good Morning America,"' Martha Zellitti, Lindsey's mom, said Friday night.
"They just thought it might be their one shot to tell the country they're still not afraid to do good deeds," Martha Zellitti said. "They'll just try to be more considerate in the future about the time."
WANT MORE?
Thank you for visiting DenverPost.com, The Denver Post's online 24-hour news source. Click here for more great DenverPost.com stories and features.
The families are also mulling over an offer from Jay Leno to do "The Tonight Show." It's not looking good for Leno, though, because Lindsey's mom wants her to get back to college in Kansas, where she is a freshman studying animal nutrition. Taylor is still in high school.
"We're just not the movie- star types," Martha Zellitti said.
But the story, which appeared Friday in The Denver Post, was linked to the Drudge Report and eBay. The tale was recounted on MSNBC ("Sugar and spice is not always nice," journalist Dan Abrams said) and other media.
The Otis Spunkmeyer cookie- making company is offering to hold an event in Durango to set things right.
"Cookies are the ultimate comfort food," Otis Spunkmeyer spokeswoman Liz Rayo said. "We don't want anyone sued over cookies. Cookies are good. This is an emotional issue for us."
They're not the only ones.
In e-mail after e-mail to The Post, from Hawaii to New York, and from Canada to Puerto Rico, people invoked with dismay the adage "No good deed goes unpunished."
Many observed that the unfortunate misunderstanding gave new meaning to the term "Cookie Monster."
One reader called the plaintiff in the case "a macaroon." Another called her a "cookie batterer."
The plaintiff could not be reached for comment Friday.
Martha Zellitti said the girls' families are not upset with the neighbor, or with the judge, who received many calls from people questioning his decision. Zellitti said the neighbor volunteers at the local food bank and does good deeds herself.
"And the judge made the best decision he could with the information he had," Zellitti said. "We just weren't prepared."
The judge awarded only $1 for damages, even though he could have given the plaintiff lost wages and the cost of new motion- sensor lights for her porch and more. She had itemized about $3,000 in all.
But political conservatives who read the story were convinced the judge must be a liberal activist intent on being politically correct. On the other hand, liberals said the judge and neighbor must be conservatives, who tend to see "terrorists behind every bush and on every porch," even in a quiet rural neighborhood just south of Durango.
The girls' defenders ran the gamut from executives and reverends to felons.
One e-mailer offered to set the girls up in their own cookie business.
There were other factions. A small but intense group were incensed that anyone would consider 10:30 p.m. "too late." It's really early, they said.
One church group wrote that members were very concerned because one of its favorite programs is for youths to ring doorbells, drop off treats and run. Another church group in South Carolina said it had young men in its congregation who would like to correspond with the Durango bakers.
"Lindsey's boyfriend wouldn't like that," Martha Zellitti said.
Bullcrap. Totally wrong. The Colorado Criminal Code provides no such thing.
I didn't insert the concept of rape into this story. I used an extreme off-topic example to illustrate the absurdity of JumpDrive's argument of, "Well, I like to do it so it must be OK."
Some people are immune to the subtle logic of normal rational debate and need to be intellectually "hit over the head" with extreme examples before they begin to comprehend the failings of their arguments.
It took a fairly long investigation, because he was outside of the house itself, but she was not charged. Her position was that she was in fear for her safety.
well that clarifies that point then, as it wasn't in the first story I read.. I would love to hear that call to the sheriff though.. personally 8:30 is the latest I let my children call on the neighbors, but this lady has some mental problems..
Plenty of time to go to the Smith's house, knock off the philandering husband, and still make it back for the choir practice. </Law & Order>
Are some of you aware that in the mountain west it doesn't get dark until well after 9:00PM in the summer? It's not as though they came in the middle of the night. I hope this witch of a neighbor does not need any kind of help after dark. I have a strong hunch her neighbors will be permanently unavailable.
In no way do the facts of this case justify deadly force under Colorado law.
The girls knocked and ran.
Even if the homeowner was startled, there was no reasonable fear for her safety. We don't even have to discuss whether a lesser use of force was justified. The girls ran.
Had this witch used deadly force, she'd face murder charges under the undisputed facts in this case.
Glad to see a happy ending for the girls. This case reminds me of my time on a jury. The woman who was the Plaintiff just basically sued everyone as her hobby. Her bank. Her kids. Her neighbors. Her hairdresser. Etc.
We found the Defendant innocent, and made that looney lady pay all court fees for both sides.
It was my one shining moment dispensing justice, and it felt good! :)
.
The Durango story is missing all of these elements.
As to the amount of force, at my door, at that time of day, and pounding as it was described, I'd advise the pounders to make sure their will is up to date. Would I shoot? It'd be a close call. Would it be a justifiable defense? I know I'd be there to argue my side of things.
And you'd defend them for doing it (but you couldn't because you're dead).
When my comments are editorialised to say things I didn't say, I know I've won the debate.
Sounds like the nervous nellie might have to spend that $930 on attorney fees for her hubby. What a gnat. They won in court, yet he's making harrassing phone calls?
I think the story that the "victim" is telling is suspect. Sounds embellished to me.
Congratulations! Can I watch you put on your crown?
LOL! No crown here, and you're welcome at my house anytime. Just don't pound on the front door in the middle of the night, we'd all hate to lose a good Freeper!
if you di cal this judge. tell him thanks for siding with the property owner for me would ya? thanks. we need more pro-property owner judges.
You're lucky you're not a newbie. You'd get banned like the other fella that challenged her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
